TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (12) TMI 30
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....acts of the case are that the assessee is an unregistered firm and the relevant assessment year is 1978-79. Saudagar Mal and Ram Lal are two partners of the firm. Both these partners filed their individual returns declaring their income from the firm and these returns were accepted by the Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Dehradun, under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on November 7, 1978, a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Rodamal Lalchand v. CIT [1977] 109 ITR 7. Thus, the question which arises in this case is whether the assessment of the assessee-firm was valid when two of its partners had already been assessed individually in respect of their shares in the income of the firm. It may be mentioned that an unregistered firm has the same stat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vided among the partners and hence the income tax slab is at a higher rate. In our opinion, there is no bar to assess an unregistered firm even after the individual partner is assessed. This is for two reasons: (1) As stated above, when a firm is unregistered the individual partners are not assessed on their share on the income of the firm vide section 86(iii) but only the firm is assessed as a ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Sidh Gopal Gajanand v. ITO [1969] 73 ITR 226 (All); Sunil Kumar v. CIT [1983] 139 ITR 880 (Bom); Sohan Singh v. CIT [1986] 158 ITR 174 (Delhi); CIT v. Cochin Co.(P.) Ltd. [1976] 104 ITR 655 (Ker), etc. In ITO v. Ch. Atchaiah [1996] 218 ITR 239, the Supreme Court observed: "Under the present Act, the Income-tax Officer has no option like the one he had under the 1922 Act. He can, and he must, ta....